People v. Greene
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, First Judicial District, County of Santa Barbara. On the 15th day of October, 1868, the defendant located, and, on the 16th day of December, 1868, purchased from the State the north half of section eighteen, township number nine north, range thirty-three west, San Bernardino base and meridian, lying in the County of Santa Barbara, and containing. three hundred and twenty acres.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, First Judicial District, County of Santa Barbara. On the 15th day of October, 1868, the defendant located, and, on the 16th day of December, 1868, purchased from the State the north half of section eighteen, township number nine north, range thirty-three west, San Bernardino base and meridian, lying in the County of Santa Barbara, and containing. three hundred and twenty acres. On the day of purchase, the defendant received from the State a certificate of purchase numbered one thousand three hundred and ninety-three. He neglected to pay the interest on the sum…
1Opinion of the Court
The summons was radically defective. ISTo land is described, nor is it stated that the interest of any body in any land is sought to be foreclosed, nor that any certificate of purchase is sought to be annulled.
Jo Hamilton, Attorney-General, for the People.
By the Court :
Sec. 407 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the summons shall contain “ the cause and general nature of the action.” The summons in this case is fatally defective in this particular. It does not substantially state the cause or general nature of the action set forth in the complaint. The service of the summons was by…
2Cited by5 opinions
- White v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Verdier v. RoachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- People v. DodgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. R. v. NichollsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1884
- In re Estate of Finch, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco1893